2011.08.05 Hearing on Casey's probation

[dog.gone.cute]

I really wish the State would reconsider the perjury charge. Not pursuing it sends a terrible message IMO.

:rocker: I totally agree !!! The state should have "charged" CA ! The message it sent was "it is okay to lie on the stand" ...

:waitasec: Oh wait -- that ONLY APPLIES to an "ANTHONY" !

:maddening::banghead::maddening:

 

[Ada]

I think the judge was as stunned by the NG verdicts as most of us were. And I think the sentencing on the guilty verdicts was affected by the fact that he was still reeling. Not to say I know this for a fact since I do not know him personally, but I saw him look through the verdict forms and then do a double-take and look again. It's what I would have done in that position because I would not have been able to believe my eyes.

Errors were made. Casey is benefiting from those errors. This is not right. If Casey were being unjustly penalized due to an error everyone would be falling all over themselves to fix it.

BBM

Yes! I saw that too. He looked through each page, and then went back and looked at the first two again; the murder verdicts.

Have to say, he has a much better poker face than I do. I would have thrown the papers to the floor, yelled 'wth is wrong with you people!' and then lunged at the jury box. :crazy:

 

[krkrjx]

:rocker: I totally agree !!! The state should have "charged" CA ! The message it sent was "it is okay to lie on the stand" ...

:waitasec: Oh wait -- that ONLY APPLIES to an "ANTHONY" !

:maddening::banghead::maddening:

MOO here, but I think lying under oath happens a fair amount of the time in courts all over this country. Rarely does anything ever come of it. It is possible CA was advised of this. I am not saying anyone in particular encouraged her to lie on the stand, but someone may have suggested to her that perjury is rarely pursued in most situations and that if anything came of it all she would have to do is claim she was medicated at the time.

I think the SA did not pursue this because their chance of winning would be almost nil. It's wrong, but it is what it is.

 

[krkrjx]

BBM

Yes! I saw that too. He looked through each page, and then went back and looked at the first two again; the murder verdicts.

Have to say, he has a much better poker face than I do. I would have thrown the papers to the floor, yelled 'wth is wrong with you people!' and then lunged at the jury box. :crazy:

I saw a trial on TV where a judge did something like that. He didn't throw anything or yell, but right after he read the not guilty verdict he turned to the jury and said, "I am very disappointed in you."

Gotta admit, I was floored! Judges always thank juries for their time, even when they do not believe it was time well spent.

ETA: It was a real trial, not a TV show.

 

[Ada]

Ok forget putting her on probation, forget the miscalculated time served.

Bring her back into court. Ask her questions regarding her 'in jail probation' and then lock her up for perjury, because she is incapable of telling the truth.

:great:

 

[Well Done 99]

I think lying under oath happens a fair amount of the time in courts all over this country. ........ It's wrong, but it is what it is.

+respectfully snipped+

ITA. Only have to watch any of the true crime shows to realise that, even regardless of indisputable proof of guilt, there is nearly always at least one member of the offender's family who will continue to support them.
Could possibly even take it a step further and say that the courts almost "expect" it which, as you say, is wrong .... but so-be-it.

 

[krkrjx]

I just read the guilty plea for the first time, and I am steaming now. This DT has the nerve to complain about probation? The maximum sentence she could have received was 65 years. She got 412 days plus a year probation. What is wrong with these people? They should be kissing the feet of HHJS for being so easy on her and saying "Yes, sir. Probation will start today."

Yep....and to quote Whisperer from a couple days ago: Why does this defense team keep kicking the gift horse in the mouth?

 

[RR0004]

+respectfully snipped+

ITA. Only have to watch any of the true crime shows to realise that, even regardless of indisputable proof of guilt, there is nearly always at least one member of the offender's family who will continue to support them.
Could possibly even take it a step further and say that the courts almost "expect" it which, as you say, is wrong .... but so-be-it.

Lie on the stand-okay
Get caught giving the finger-jail time
???????
What is wrong with this picture?!!!
It's all laughable (my word of the day).

 

[Well Done 99]

Lie on the stand-okay
Get caught giving the finger-jail time
???????
What is wrong with this picture?!!!
It's all laughable (my word of the day).

:floorlaugh: LOL RR. Maybe he could have gotten his mother to come on the stand and say SHE held his finger in that position!

 

[com n sense]

I think the judge was as stunned by the NG verdicts as most of us were. And I think the sentencing on the guilty verdicts was affected by the fact that he was still reeling. Not to say I know this for a fact since I do not know him personally, but I saw him look through the verdict forms and then do a double-take and look again. It's what I would have done in that position because I would not have been able to believe my eyes.

Errors were made. Casey is benefiting from those errors. This is not right. If Casey were being unjustly penalized due to an error everyone would be falling all over themselves to fix it.

ITA - I saw JP do that double take too. I thought UH OHHH.
That verdict sent all of us into shock including JP! I am not kidding when I say that. I lost 2 days that week. I have no idea where they went. I couldn't eat, sleep or think.
I had that hang over feeling that all the talking heads were talking about.
That lasted for atleast 5 days. It felt like I was grieving a death.
Firt the shock then denial, anger, bargaining & last - utter grief.

 

[krkrjx]

I do not think the DOC calculations are incorrect. The problem lies in the part of the Court (JP) awarding her credit for 1043 days served WHICH INCLUDED THE CHECK FRAUD SENTENCE.
There was no error. JP did do it intentionally. It will not be corrected. DOC had to use that number (1043) as awarded by the court

It does not matter to me whose error it was. What matters is that the error can and should be corrected.

 

[JBean]

Right, she got gain time for being in protective custody which was necessary why ? It was not as a punishment, it was protection from other inmates but she gets gain time for it ... I know that's how it works but it seems off to me ...
The defense keeps harping on how she was in solitary confinement ... WTH ? ... that's a punishment for bad behavior ...
I dunno, something just seems hinky about getting extra credit for it when she HAD to be treated like that for her own protection ... and who made this a high profile case ?? and who's fault was it that she had to be put there to begin with ?? We all know why ...
Instead of thanking OS jail for keeping her safe and not putting her in with other inmates, she asks for gain time and good behavior time ... just doesn't make much sense to me ...

She is entitled to gain time if she cannot work due to protective custody.If she was in there for punishment she would not be entitled to the gain time. This would apply to any inmate. As much as we would like to pick and choose what applies to her, that is the very thing that the defense is being faulted for.
So, if she got the gain time fair and square so be it. We just need to make sure everything across the board is doled out just as fairly and squarely. KWIM?

 

[JBean]

What kind of isolation? She was allowed visitors like Robin in her cell - even cut her hair IIRC... and others could talk to her.

She was in protective custody and not gen pop. If it is similar to CA, if you can't work you can't get good time/ work time or gain time. So, because she was isolated for a reason other than punishment, she was not afforded the ability to work-so they get the credit as though they had been able to work. I have no idea if it works exactly the same, but it is probably pretty similar.

 

[krt]

But HHJP also said you can't serve a sentence and probation at the same time. So, if he does rule that probation has been served, then he has to figure out what to do about the 4 years he sentenced her toon the lying charges because he would have to exclude a year of that 'time served' to devote it to her year of probation.

I think he could send her back to jail for some period of time for the lying charges. That would be the ultimate karma moment to see her have to go back to jail.

THAT is EXACTLY what i think he will do.............the DT kept stressing she did her probation.........she did her probation..............and JP even said YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TO.

Accordingly, her arse will be back in jail for the remainder of time that needs to be served for her lying convictions.

Of course, this was my most recent dream re this case.............lol

In addition, NOW they should adjudicate the remaining charges and tack on that time too! In GENERAL POPULATION OF COURSE!!!. :crazy:

 

[rossva]

<modsnip>

What dog does Richard Hornsby have in this race anyhow? He is a criminal defense attorney, and from my point of view, his constant blogging about Casey Anthony is nothing more that his personal attempt to garner publicity, and proffit off little Caylee Anthony's death. For some one who has "Rest assured "I practice exclusively criminal law." on their site, they seem to be on the Prosecutions side.

 

[krkrjx]

ITA - I saw JP do that double take too. I thought UH OHHH.
That verdict sent all of us into shock including JP! I am not kidding when I say that. I lost 2 days that week. I have no idea where they went. I couldn't eat, sleep or think.
I had that hang over feeling that all the talking heads were talking about.
That lasted for atleast 5 days. It felt like I was grieving a death.
Firt the shock then denial, anger, bargaining & last - utter grief.

Me too. That I was reeling for some time after that hideous verdict leads me to believe the judge may have been as well because he had a lot more vested in this case than I did. I am sure he has been handed unexpected verdicts before, but I think in this case everyone in the courtroom, including the judge, expected this to end with a guilty verdict on at least one of the felony charges.

The judge is a professional but he is not immune to making mistakes. I think he made an error in calculating the number of credit days for Casey, and I think he intended the sentences to be consecutive to the fraud sentences. Truth is, it would be impossible to have them run concurrent because the first sentence had already been served. If he meant consecutive, he should clarify that now. No one is perfect and there is no shame in admitting you have made a mistake.

 

[krt]

<mod snip>

What dog does Richard Hornsby have in this race anyhow? He is a criminal defense attorney, and from my point of view, his constant blogging about Casey Anthony is nothing more that his personal attempt to garner publicity, and proffit off little Caylee Anthony's death. For some one who has "Rest assured "I practice exclusively criminal law." on their site, they seem to be on the Prosecutions side.

Maybe because he is ethical and has a moral conscious? :innocent:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

MOO here, but I think lying under oath happens a fair amount of the time in courts all over this country. Rarely does anything ever come of it. It is possible CA was advised of this. I am not saying anyone in particular encouraged her to lie on the stand, but someone may have suggested to her that perjury is rarely pursued in most situations and that if anything came of it all she would have to do is claim she was medicated at the time.

I think the SA did not pursue this because their chance of winning would be almost nil. It's wrong, but it is what it is.

Yes, I agree that "lying under oath" happens in courts all the time ... but it still does NOT make it right -- and in this case there was PROOF !

I think the SA did NOT pursue it because in 'my opinion' I think they want to rid themselves of ALL the Anthony's .... it has been a LONG 3 YEARS for the SA and I think they have had their "fill" ... and I can understand that ...

And I believe that CFCA will NOT do probation ... and they will NOT re-calculate the time to correct the "miscalculations" -- and because they want to rid themselves of CFCA !

CFCA will NEVER be held responsible for ANY of her "criminal actions" -- including MURDER -- and it just "boils my blood" !

MOO MOO MOO ...

 

[krkrjx]

THAT is EXACTLY what i think he will do.............the DT kept stressing she did her probation.........she did her probation..............and JP even said YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TO.

Accordingly, her arse will be back in jail for the remainder of time that needs to be served for her lying convictions.

Of course, this was my most recent dream re this case.............lol

In addition, NOW they should adjudicate the remaining charges and tack on that time too! In GENERAL POPULATION OF COURSE!!!. :crazy:

Those charges can never be adjudicated unless it is ruled that Casey has not served her probation. If that happens, she will be placed on probation and if she messes up, those charges can come up and bite her.

I think it will be ruled Casey has completed her probation. That would make the issue of the previously withheld fraud charges moot. And that is as it should be, because that is the sentence that was agreed upon by all involved.

I am not trying to sock it to Casey or deny her any of her rights. She was entitled to gain time just like any other inmate. She received her gain time and I have never had an issue with it. My gripe is that if Casey did in fact serve probation while incarcerated, those days cannot be credited toward a subsequent jail sentence and thus she has not served her entire sentence on the lying to LE charges.

 

[rotterdam]

She was in protective custody and not gen pop. If it is similar to CA, if you can't work you can't get good time/ work time or gain time. So, because she was isolated for a reason other than punishment, she was not afforded the ability to work-so they get the credit as though they had been able to work. I have no idea if it works exactly the same, but it is probably pretty similar.

It sounds fair to me too. Inmates not in protective custody can surely also gain five days a month too in some other ways. The inmate did not elect protective custody, the jail did, therefor such an inmate should have the same opportunity.